Real Whitby - A Community Website For You the Community

Lights, Camera – Abusive Reaction

Lights, Camera – Abusive Reaction

a report by NICK HENDERSON on Whitby Town Council’s reaction to being filmed for wider distribution on YouTube. Events at this week’s meeting have passed unreported by the Whitby Gazette (whose correspondent was present throughout).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuesday 4th February 2014 was the date; 6:45pm the time.

The location; Pannett Park Art Gallery, Whitby.

The occasion; Whitby Town Council’s February Meeting.

I arrived punctually at the Gallery, and wandered into the chamber where the Council meets on a monthly basis to carry out its statutory duties. As always, the hall is clean, tidy and a pleasure to visit.

Unlike some other Council venues, there is a hot-drinks machine available for visitors to obtain some refreshment. It isn’t “tea and scones at the Ritz”, but it is far more than many other Councils offer.

Within minutes of arriving, the Town Mayor, Councillor John Freeman, joined me in the ‘public gallery’ to ask if I had any intentions of filming the proceedings, to which I stated that I did.

We had a discussion about how, in his view, I needed to have permission of the Copyright holders of the artworks on display before I could film within the Gallery, and certainly wouldn’t be able to film the Council as a result. I didn’t agree with the Mayor’s position, and he didn’t agree with mine, but our exchange of views was conducted evenly and with mutual respect.

Presently, the Deputy Clerk of the Council joined Cllr Freeman and I with some papers, indicating the guidelines issued by CPALC, (Communities, Parishes and Local Councils – the body which provides legal guidance for local councils) which state that Parish/Town Councils are not obliged to give their permission when members of the public wish to film. Strictly, this is only partially true – and misleadingly so. In fact, Councils are not authorised to withhold permission, which is not necessary in law. Permission is not required.

I had with me a document from the Chairman of ACPO ( the Association of Chief Police Officers ), stating that the public have no need to obtain a permit to film in a public place, and that the Police (nor anyone else) has no power to prevent the public from filming. The actual wording reads:

“Freedom to photograph and film Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.”

Next we come to the definition of “public place”. If we take a look at the Public Order Act 1936, and in relation to which, the Criminal Justice Act 1972, we find the following:

33 Extension of definition of “public place” in Public Order Act 1936.

For the definition of “public place” in section 9(1) of the M1 Public Order Act 1936 there shall be substituted—

“Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.

As a result, it would appear that, by definition, every Council meeting constitutes a “public place”, where no powers exist to prevent a member of the public from filming, or making a recording.

Mayor Freeman, went away, with the Deputy Clerk after being made aware of this information, to discuss the Council’s position.

After a few minutes, the Mayor and Deputy Clerk returned to the Council chamber to discuss this issue with the rest of the members present, and put it to them that there would be filming in progress.

Quite a number of those present expressed an interest in the idea of being filmed, and allowing transparency to prevail.

However, an argument was put forth that suggested that the Council was wary of the video being used in such a way that could ridicule the Council, or members of it. So I was asked if I would be happy to provide a copy of any recordings made at the end of each session, so that no questions could be asked about the content of any video, and that the Council itself could be assured that no editing was taking place of any recordings made.

I agreed to this and paused the recording, and turned off the camera. You can see for yourself, here. The clear indication was that if I provided an unedited copy of the proceedings, then recording would be acceptable to all those present – irrespective of the lawful position.

Interestingly, towards end of the meeting, Cllr Mrs Amanda Smith, queried the Council members present about an amendment on a proposal that was Minuted as having made at previous meeting, though she did not remember having done so. In the Minutes of the previous meeting, Cllr Mrs Smith was said to have tabled an Amendment to a Proposal, of which she asserted she had no personal recollection. A lengthy discussion ensued, up to the point that Mayor Freeman announced that “our two colleagues at the back, in the public gallery, are gleeful that we cannot agree on the content of our last meeting” – whilst I wasn’t ‘gleeful’, I did find it fascinating that my idea of recording the meeting would have alleviated the need to question minutes, and a lack of recollection. A clear indication, if ever one was needed, that a video recording of all meetings would prevent any inaccuracies from arising in Minutes, etc.

At the end of the meeting, which I might add was quite up-beat and productive (certainly not boring), I approached the Mayor and Deputy Mayor about the issue of filming.

During our conversation, it was made clear that a Council that embraced changes such as those being brought forth in the 21st Century would be seen to be ‘ahead of the curve’. It would also allow the Council to make the claim that it truly is embracing the ideals of transparency, in the modern age. The Council could also claim that it was attempting to engage the electorate in as many ways as possible, especially for the fact that by providing direct video on the internet, that people who would ordinarily be unable to attend Council meetings could participate via the video links on the internet – certainly the very idea of open and engaging governance!

Cllr Freeman certainly should be commended and applauded for accepting this idea.

However, the proceedings were brought into a negative light by Cllr Noreen Wilson (Lab.), who attacked me verbally at the end of the meeting.

Her words to me, without provocation, or even any form of interaction, were:

“I will not be bullied by the likes of you into being filmed. You can shove your camera up your arse!”

Those certainly are not the words of a fine, upstanding member of the community. They were witnessed by several members of the public, and Cllr Phil Trumper (at least). Whilst I have every regard for Noreen’s opinion, and respect her right to express herself, I’m sure she would be the first to cry foul if I had were to address her in a similar arrogant fashion.

Worse still, upon contacting her for a statement in relation to this issue (via email) her response was “Who are you and what/who do you represent please?” … this despite providing an email detailing that I would be developing this story the next day or so, with a view to publication.

All that remains, is to say that I will be attending the next meeting of WTC with a view to recording, and will happily provide an un-edited copy of the recording to WTC immediately after the meeting, in order to ensure that all parties are represented accurately.

Updates will be forthcoming as they are available.

One other slightly sour note should be mentioned. Members of the public leaving the meeting after only half an hour or so were surprised to see a Police car blocking the only exit from Pannett Park, clearing the way only when they had satisfied themselves that no activists were attempting an escape. 🙂

When the Police attended a Council Meeting at Seamer & Crossgates recently, the lead Officer explained to the council that there was no prohibition against filming. Regrettably, the Chairman, Councillor Harry Smith, stubbornly refused to accept the inevitable and promptly adjourned the meeting – thus grabbing first prize in the Private Eye ‘Rotten Boroughs’ annual “Open Government” Award.

26 Comments

According to the reports I have received, the Police behaved very well when called to attend the Seamer and Crossgates Parish Council meeting and resolved the matter very sensibly. However, I do think it a shame that Councillors that call out the police to deal with this sort of thing cannot be charged with wasting police time.

Most Councillors work very hard at their duties and should welcome the opportunity of being filmed working for their wards and constituents.

Whitby Town Council have come a long way in the openness and transparency department, in the last few years. Gone are the days of gerrymandering and the ‘that’s democracy sunshine’ attitude which used to prevail at WTC meetings. I attend the meetings quite regularly and find them interesting,and that members of the public get a warm welcome and a fair hearing, with a lack of formality, which encourages public participation.This unfortunate incident is not typical and I do hope that Cllr. Wilson’s unwarranted outburst will not deter people of a sensitive nature from attending the meetings of WTC.

The government has recognised for many years now that engagement in public life necessarily and quite rightly places elected representatives in a position rather different to those held by the rest of us in private life. They bear the public trust; with that comes accountability.

If (former) Councillor Noreen WILSON feels that she has cogent reasons to keep her activities out of the public gaze, she certainly did the right thing by resigning at Tuesday’s Meeting.

But, whether as a Councillor or as a member of the public, her remarks to Nick do her no credit whatsoever. The Labour Party professes a zero-tolerance policy towards verbal abuse.

My own view is that, despite her membership of what is generally acknowledged to be a left-wing political party (Labour), Noreen WILSON has behaved like an extremely authoritarian control-freak who simply wants her own way. She even supports jail sentences for those who feed sea-gulls:

Thank you for the reply in which you state that transparency is the reason why you undertake filming of Council meetings including that of WTC.

I was not aware that Whitby Council was not already viewed as being transparent especially when you consider the availabilty for the public to access agendas, minutes including information on their website without even the need to attend a meeting personally themselves. A view which to some degree is supported by Mr Ineson’s earlier comments.

The cartoon depicting the council as all hiding from the camera is also in my opinion a little disingenuous.

I also understand now that it is not Real Whitby which carries out the filming as it merely provides a platform for you report back on this action and its outcome. Any subsequent videos are not available on this website but are shown on that of YouTube

Arthur, minutes of Council meetings sometimes do not tell the whole story. Some Councils (never been to a WTC meeting) persist in not minuting the lively discussion between members.

For instance, questions asked in the public interest by elected members and the answers precipitated are not minuted simply because the Council says it is ‘not their style’ to minute such things. Filming the meetings overcomes such problems.

Whilst online, I am not graced with the ability to put ‘tone’ into my words. However, without wishin to sound in any way negative:

I am Nick. Please address me by that which I am called.

With respect of your reply (where you thanked me) you are most welcome. Open dialogue is something I think is a great idea. Sadly, far too many people shy away from it, or hide behind pseudonyms. As you can see, I do not.

The transparency issue is one, as Tim has rightly pointed out, that has caused much debate recently. In fact, during the meeting itself, the issue of minutes not being ‘recorded properly’ came up (as you can read above). An issue that suggests a failure to record properly. A video record, uploaded, unedited would alleviate that problem entirely.

It would also give opportunity in the future to really scrutinise Councils, Councillors, and the ‘business’ taking place. Why would that be a bad thing? Why is there such resistance to change? After all; isn’t this the 21st Century?

I’ve talked to a lot of people over the last two days, all of whom have mentioned that it would be a great idea for Councils everywhere to be recording their activities… There only ever seems to be vehement ‘opposition’ from people posting online.

Filming all Council meetings would provide an opportunity for those who would be interested to view the workings of their local government and their members but is unlikely to take place for all. I have noted that NYCC have videos of their meetings on again YouTube but how many people would sit down and watch these is debateable. It would however be likely to influence how some council members portray themselves.

There is of course the added issue with local councils in that there is a personal aspect whereby council members can be known by others in the town or parish who, because of this, may give them little respect some of which may be printed on this website. It is often implied by those who comment on this website that all councillors are alike are in it only for what they can get out of it for themselves. Whereas some are like this and deserve the criticism I would like to believe, maybe wrongly, that by far the majority are not and they do their best for the areas they represent.

I can understand the initial reaction of some local council members to being filmed they did not understand that this would be the case when they put themselves forward for election and see this as an intrusion, this is understandable. If this did become the norm then although it could be reffered to at a later date it is possible that the viewing would soon loose its appeal and not be watched by many but, this is only my opinion.

The very idea of putting ones self forward for election is to be elected. The point of that is to SERVE the community. It doesn’t matter if you are being filmed doing the job you applied to do. Employees at Burger King are filmed on the company’s CCTV system. Where is the difference? No one was in the streets standing up for the privacy of fast-food workers when they were forced onto camera. As an Elected Member you are in the SERVICE of the community. If that community then wish to exercise their right to scrutinise you, by film, blog, or photograph, then they have every right to do so.

As you rightly pointed out, not all councillors (elected or otherwise) are corrupt. However, it should be noted that when Councillors do a good job they should be proud of that fact – and take credit for it – that’s what I want to see more of.

What possible motive would any councillor have for hiding from the public gaze? After all, didn’t they put themselves in the public gaze by being elected? It is as if they want all the credit and glory of being called “councillor” but none of the actual responsibilities that go with it – such as being accountable by the public. Public scrutiny (also reads as: ‘feedback’) should allow Councillors to understand their public, to learn from them and to make better decisions, and more informed choices for the community. Where is the harm in that?

You seem too keen to defend the ‘right to privacy’ of PUBLIC SERVANTS… too quick to defend those who shy away from the public gaze despite asking the public to put them in a position of ‘power’.

Whilst I am not, for one second, suggesting that all councillors want to ‘hide’, I do wonder why any of them put themselves up for election if they don’t want the public to know what they are up to.

Thanks for the reply, I do not intend to continue overly debating this matter but have responded below and will again on this or related articles if warranted.

Firstly I agree with you when you say that councillors are elected, or co-opted, to service the community in which they are a member and this goes without saying, should those who wish to scrutinise or ensure that they are doing this correctly then they can do this direct by attending Council meetings, as I do occasionally. They are therefore under the public’s gaze by normal means. Just for record I am not trying to defend the ‘right to privacy’ of public servants.

Should you make the filming of council meetings a regular event then there will be an alternative to attending meetings provided for those who wish to use it however few or many this may be.

You state further that “If that community then wish to exercise their right to scrutinise you, by film, blog, or photograph, then they have every right to do so.” I agree but would this also apply to those who does not reside in this community and therefore not subject to the service provided or otherwise.

No not exactly but I suppose its like myself travelling to film say a Parish Council 50 miles away I have no idea as how the council and its members perform, represents the parishioners etc etc. It would be much more logical for a local resident(s) to, if they believed it would be beneficial to their community, to film and post on Youtube.